sisterhood is…

Gloria Feldt is a sanity-inducing voice in the midst of the generational snarkfest that’s currently going on. I’m sharing her comment on my last post here, as a post, because I wonder if I ever shy away from the flames of controversy just a wee bit too much. (Hmm…paging Dr. Freud!)

I truly believe in engaging debate and viciously hate the anger-filled tone that debate seems to have taken on of late. Doth Girl with Pen protest too much? I’d be curious to hear what others think about tactics for airing differences. How do we clear a space for argument, as Gloria urges below, in a way that genuinely moves debate forward? (And doesn’t this image of Gloria on an IPOD just make your day?)

In any event, one of the many things I value about Gloria is her ability to engage–meaning debate and differ–with younger generations while maintaining a deep sense of respect. And here she is:

Deborah-
I couldn’t agree more with your suggested course of action to defeat McCain together. That’s the job #1 of all feminists for sure.

At the same time, I want to put in a good word for engaging the debate even when it is with gloves off. I suggest that what women need most is to learn how to engage vigorously and constructively without being turned off or frightened off.

Like you, I believe we shouldn’t trash each other, but (probably because I’ve had lots of experience with hardknuckle conflict and know that one lives to tell the tale–and even learns and grows stronger from it), I think we need to clear a space for arguing about the issues together with the goal of not just understanding but making concrete plans to go forward on matters like winning the general election.

Every generation has to speak in its own tongue. We don’t have to be angry with one another to air our differences.
Gloria Feldt

Just read a post over at the Mother Jones blog called “Throwing Clinton Under the Bus To Spite Mom.” Really? I mean, really? This conversation is going nowhere fast. In the post, Debra Dickerson trashes (to dredge up a dread practice from the 1970s) Courtney Martin and Amy Tiemann, then concludes:

We’ll stop saying aloud that you don’t know what you’re talking about if you’ll stop believing that you know everything already. Deal?

Here’s what I posted in comments to Dickerson’s post, and here’s how I feel:

Deal.

Deborah Siegel here – a young(ish) Hillary supporter who feels pained at the way some young female Obama supporters are getting flamed. I don’t care how it started, or who said what about whom. Time to start focusing on beating McCain. I hope this is the last post of this tone that we’ll be seeing for a while. Goodbye to all THAT, I say.

Quick sidenote: Feminist history is full of intergenerational division, as I write about in my book. Important to remember that young Alice Paul and older Carrie Chapman Catt shared a goal (suffrage) but disagreed on tactics. “Libbers” and the older Betty Friedan disagreed on whether politics meant what you do in the bedroom or what happens at city hall. Together albeit in different ways they made the momentous change that became the 1st and 2nd+ waves.

Difference today is that we have blogs and online media, where it’s easier, it seems, to write snarkily and quote each other out of context. If I’ve been guilty of it too, mea culpa. Let’s move on. A Democrat in 2008. Deal?

Two quick hits:

Amy Tiemann interviewed me for the MojoMom Podcast this morning. Here’s the link.

Courtney just published a response to Linda Hirshman’s critique of her in The American Prospect today.

And ok ok, I take back “brouhaha.” Totally just playing into the sentiment that it’s a mini-war. In all honesty, I wish we could see MORE media stories about the kinds of conversations we WomenGirlsLadies have been seeing take place from Ypsilanti to Cambridge. And in our own backyards. Or the kind Amy and I–who are on opposite sides of the Clinton/Obama divide–had this morning.

Empathy, people, empathy. Eyes on the prize. I know our politics are intensely personal, but can we please start cutting the noise and get ready to get behind the notion that we’ll need to unify in order to successfully do battle with McCain??? I’m getting nervous. Though I KNOW we can win.

Blogger Amy Tiemann (aka Mojo Mom) has an excellent piece up over at Women’s eNews this week, titled “Obama v. Clinton Puts Stretch Marks on Sisterhood”, which beings:

“Sisterhood” bound women together during the second wave of feminism in the 1970s.

Fast-forward three decades, and it is time to start asking ourselves what happens when you try to stretch sisterhood across a generational divide and then push and pull it between the campaigns of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Answer: serious stretch marks.

I couldn’t agree more (and kinda wish she had cited my book or Courtney and my WaPo oped somewhere–oops–down ego, down) when Amy writes:

Ten years from now we could look back on the arguments about Clinton v. Obama as the wedge that emphasized a generational divide, to the detriment of all women.

The Mother-Daughter dynamic illuminates a power differential. In many ways the Mothers have the upper hand. They control the largest established organizations, the purse strings of foundation grants. By excluding younger women’s definitions of feminism, however, the Mothers are short-circuiting their power.

The Mothers need to remember that they need the Daughters as well.

Gen-Xers such as myself are no longer children; we’re reaching our 40s now. Not only do we represent the future, we are the bridge to the millennial generation who will clean up after all of us.

And speaking of intergenerational, the WomenGirlsLadies crew can’t wait til tomorrow, when we’ll be conversing on this very topic and more over at Harvard, on the heels of that interesting conference on feminism over there the other week with Camille Paglia, Katie Roiphe, Christina Hoff Sommers and others. Perhaps we might all be together on a stage sometime cause that sure would be an interesting conversation.

(Thanks to Joanne over at PunditMom for the heads up on Amy’s piece!)

I’ve been really moved reading the comments and emails posted in response to Courtney and my oped (“Come Together? Yes We Can”) in The Washington Post yesterday–everything from “This primary fight is breaking my heart” to ” I am so glad to read what I have been thinking,” and even the occasional “WTF” and “dream on,” as it puts me in touch with the various perspectives out there and gives me a sense of what we (as in we Dems) are up against.

The same week our oped appeared, an essay by Jessica Valenti titled “The Sisterhood Split” appeared in The Nation, and Gloria Feldt responded over at Heartfeldt, “What’s That about a Sisterhood Split?” For more, see also an article by Jennifer Wells in The Globe and Mail, “Battle Lines Harden on the Gender Front”.

Clearly, there’s a hunger for discussion! Gloria, Courtney, Kristal Brent Zook, and I are taking the conversation on the road this month with what I’ve been tongue-in-cheek calling the intergenerational feminist roadshow (otherwise known as “WomenGirlsLadies: A FRESH Conversation Across Generations”*). There’s one event in there (March 14 @ Eastern Michigan University) where Courtney and I can’t make it, and we’re delighted and honored to have Hannah Seligson and Paula Kamen speaking in our stead.

I’m posting our March events below, along with talks I’m giving on Sisterhood Interrupted this month too. A thousand thanks for spreading word, and def come say hi if you’re there!

March 11 @ University of Missouri, Kansas City (Sisterhood, Interrupted)

March 14 @ Eastern Michigan University (WomenGirlsLadies)

March 17 @ Central Michigan University (WomenGirlsLadies)

March 18 @ Eastern Michigan University, Central Michigan University (WomenGirlsLadies)

March 26 @ Lafayette College, PA (Sisterhood, Interrupted)

March 27 @ New School (Feminist Generations/Feminist Locations with Ann Snitow, Meredith Tax, me, Cleopatra Lamothe, and Ercia Reade)

April 18 @ Harvard University (WomenGirlsLadies)

*WomenGirlsLadies will be booking throughout 2008. To book an engagement, please contact Taryn Kutujian at taryn.kutujian@gmail.com.

For those who missed it, the following “letter” ran in The Nation on February 27, 2008:

Two days after the Texas debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, a group of old friends broke out the good china for a light breakfast of strong coffee, blueberry muffins and fresh-squeezed orange juice. We were there to hash out a split that threatened our friendship and the various movements with which we are affiliated. In some ways it was a kaffeeklatch like a million others across America early on a Saturday morning–but for the fact that this particular group included Gloria Steinem, a co-founder of the National Women’s Political Caucus; Beverly Guy-Sheftall, director of the Women’s Research and Resource Center at Spelman College; Johnnetta Cole, chair of the board of the JBC Global Diversity and Inclusion Institute; British-born radio journalist Laura Flanders; Kimberlé Crenshaw, professor of law at Columbia and UCLA; Carol Jenkins, head of the Women’s Media Center; Farah Griffin, professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia; Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority; author Mab Segrest; Kenyan anthropologist Achola Pala Okeyo; management consultant and policy strategist Janet Dewart Bell; and Patricia Williams, Columbia law professor and Nation columnist.

It was a casual gathering, but one that settled down to business quickly. We were all progressives but diverse nonetheless. We differed in our opinions of whether to vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama–our goal was not an endorsement. Rather, the concern that united us all was the “race-gender split” playing out nationally, in which the one is relentlessly pitted against the other. We did not want to see a repeat of the ugly history of the nineteenth century, when the failure of the women’s movement to bring about universal adult suffrage metastasized into racial resentment and rift that weakened feminism throughout much of the twentieth century.

How, we wondered, did a historic breakthrough moment for which we have all longed and worked hard, suddenly risk becoming marred by having to choose between “race cards” and “gender cards”? By petty competitiveness about who endures more slings and arrows? By media depictions of white women as the sole inheritors of the feminist movement and black men as the sole beneficiaries of the civil rights movement? By renderings of black women as having to split themselves right down the center with Solomon’s sword in order to vote for either candidate? What happened, we wondered, to the last four decades of discussion about tokenism and multiple identities and the complex intersections of race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity and class?

We all worried that the feminist movement’s real message is not being heard, and we thought about how to redirect attention to those coalitions that form the bedrock of feminist concern: that wide range of civil rights groups dedicated to fighting discrimination, domestic violence, the disruptions of war, international sex and labor trafficking, child poverty and a tattered economy that threatens to increase the number of homeless families significantly.

We thought of all that has happened in just seven short but disastrous years of the Bush Administration, and we asked: how might we position ourselves so we’re not fighting one another? Our issues are greater than any disagreement about either candidate. We all know that there is simply too much at stake.

….As we gathered up the empty plates, we recommitted ourselves to further joint discussions about how to attain that collective better future, however many early mornings, late nights and urns of coffee into the future that may take. We hope women across America will choose to do the same.

Read the full letter here.

It’s always an immense pleasure to be invited by an organization to speak about Sisterhood, Interrupted, but when it’s the Alice Paul Institute–located at Paulsdale, birthplace and farm home of 1st wave icon Alice Paul–the pleasure is double. (Thank you Kris, Dana, Rhonda, and Becky!)

The crowd was intergenerational to the nth degree, spanning at least six decades–14 to 74, I’d say. My host Kris Myers and I brushed up together on ERA history during the car ride to Paulsdale, as Alice was its original author back in 1923. The talk was held in the Double Parlor of the historic home, in front of the fireplace. Being there put the whole conversation in a context that went back to early 20th century. Kris talked about generational differences between Alice Paul’s generation and Carrie Chapman Catt’s. I talked about the recent ones. We talked A LOT about the election.

The audience included founders of the Institute, South Jersey NOW members, mothers and daughters–and the group discussion afterward just rocked my world. I think I managed to get the whole exchange on video (hope my fussing with my MacBook wasn’t too distracting, to those of you who were there?!). I’m really interested in recording these intergen. convos this month whenever I can. I want them to have “legs,” as we say, beyond my little talks. Stay tuned.

And hey, speaking of, if you know of any interesting additional footage of women across gens talking about feminism out there, I’d love to hear!

As folks who know me know, I’m endlessly fascinated with the intergenerational divide among women going on around this election. And I’ve come to feel like those my age occupy an odd place here on the cusp of 40. Many of the polls show the cut-off for Hillary vs. Obama support among women voters as being age 40. We all know that cut-off numbers are often random but convenient divisors, false but convenient truths. Still, I can’t help but wonder, does my earlier waffling reflect some kind of generational fence-sitting?

It comes as no surprise that women born at different times in history are going to differ in their attitudes across the board–though the realization does seem to be news for some. In the history of feminism, generational differences has been a central theme for decades. Think back to the 1970s: Betty Friedan (who was by then middle-aged) vs. the radical feminists (who came out of the New Left and antiwar movements and were generally in their 20s). They wanted different things. Some wanted change at City Hall, others rooted their politics in the bedroom. They fought for equality, and fought each other along the way, often destructively. So my question, always, is how do we fight and debate without tearing ourselves apart? How to adamantly disagree and still find the common ground? The questions were relevant in the 1970s, and they’re relevant today.

And speaking of, I’m currently gathering data and ammo for the talks I’m giving around the country for Women’s History Month and would love to be pointed to any articles you’ve seen that focus on this latest generational division among women. The way it’s all being framed has tremendous consequences, I believe, for the future of women’s organizing, for the health of intergenerational relations, and for national politics overall. Thanks in advance for any links. Please feel free to post em here in comments–along with any thoughts of course!–or email me.

P.S. The intergenerational panel I’m traveling with through 2008 may be coming soon to a campus near you! Our March is pretty filled up, but we’re booking into the fall, so for more info, please click here.

Image cred

Finally, some great commentary on the illusive nature of that much-coveted chimera — the woman voter. Check out this interesting commentary and counterpoint in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, titled “Where Do Women Voters Stand After Super Tuesday?”, and Marie Wilson’s refreshing take on the current feminist debates around the Democratic candidates this week, over at the White House Project’s blog, Change Everything. Writes Marie:

The historic candidacies of Sens. Clinton and Obama have now made it impossible to talk about the generic “woman voter”–and that alone is a triumph for women of all stripes. Now, we are learning to talk about women as they really are: individuals who differ by race, class, age and geographic location, who will make different choices in candidates based on their different experiences of and in the world. That’s good for our democracy because it bring a chorus of new voices, perspectives, and issues to the table. It creates a more robust national conversation, a more representative plate of issues to address, and a population that is encouraged and inspired to take a more active role in the political process — which is good for all of us.

As someone who came to the women’s movement during the “second wave,” I know how our differences can be a source of pride as well as contention. And I’m happy that women aren’t being seen or acting as if we are all alike, because it’s our prerogative to be the authentic individuals that we are. Further, I see it as a privilege that we women can now feel comfortable disagreeing with each other on the public stage. In the past, disagreement was something we felt we couldn’t afford, so we had these conversations mostly behind closed doors and behind each other’s backs.

Nowhere are we seeing a more dynamic picture of our newfound comfort with discussing our political differences than in the online universe, which has most recently been a launching point for some passionate debates concerning our first female candidate. Renowned leaders of women’s causes are vocally disagreeing, and for every well-known feminist who offers commentary on this historic election, hundreds of lesser-knowns are contributing too, with often eloquent and moving language about why they are supporting Obama or Clinton. When it’s all over, the women’s movement will have a trove of spirited, intelligent, and diverse debates documented as part of our rich, evolving history. This, too, is a good thing — though you might not know it from reading the press coverage.

Men disagree often. It is seen as the natural order of things, and no one gets alarmed. When women have open disagreements, it’s different. The press revs it up, exploiting the healthy ritual of debate as hostile, destructive, divisive. But we know better. At the heart of the matter, we know that we are jointly committed to the causes that have always been women’s issues — we just have differing views on how to get there. What we are seeing is the maturing of a movement and the ability of its members to thoughtfully disagree. Let’s resist the urging of the media to divide and conquer what we hold as true — and instead celebrate this monumental year as we continue to move the women’s movement into the 21st century.

Amen to all that I say.

Hey – wait – before I sign off for the weekend, just wanted to post this MOST interesting portrait of feminism across generations by Susan Dominus today in the NYTimes.
Featured are Jessica Valenti of my alltime favorite blog feministing.com, and Marcia Pappas, who took over as president of the New York State chapter of NOW the same year Jessica founded the blog (2004). Pappas was the one who issued a press release this week proclaiming that Edward Kennedy’s endorsement of Barack Obama was a betrayal of women. Feministing.com responded (on the blog), “Wow. This is completely unhinged, and frankly, mind-boggling….All I can say is, NOW-NY does not speak for me. And it does not speak for all feminists.”

The NYTimes article, called “Feminists Find Unity is Elusive,” ends with this:

“The two women should probably talk. Surely, there’s a message board somewhere big enough for both of them. We already know they have a lot in common.”

I’d like to see that conversation take place. In fact, I’d like to moderate. I know, I know, I should be careful what I wish for. But seriously, women across generations need to talk to each other, and not just at each other. Which is what we all more often do.

And please note: I took the feministing icon from the left side of the banner over there so as to be sure it does not look like the mudflap girl is giving NOW the finger. Though I admit it was iconographically tempting, that’s not what I’m about.